Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Sale of Drugs without License – Manufacture vs. Wholesale Sale – No Violation Established – The appellants, engaged in manufacturing and selling medical gases, were charged under Section 18(a)(vi) read with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for allegedly selling Nitrous Oxide I.P. to an unlicensed firm – The appellants sought quashing of the proceedings, arguing that the firm in question was licensed under Form 25, allowing it to alter, break, repackage, and distribute the product – The Supreme Court held that both the seller and buyer possessed a valid Form 25 manufacturing license, permitting such transactions – Mere absence of a Form 20B wholesale license with the buyer did not make the transaction unlawful – Consequently, the proceedings were quashed [Paras 18-26].

Issuance of Summons – Non-Application of Mind – Summoning Order Must Reflect Reasons – The Trial Court issued process against the appellants without recording any reasoning for taking cognizance – The Supreme Court reiterated that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter, requiring due application of mind by the Magistrate – Held: The summoning order was mechanical and non-speaking, rendering it unsustainable in law – Proceedings quashed [Paras 32-36].

Interpretation of ‘Manufacture’ – Section 3(f), Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Wide Scope – Includes Processing, Alteration, and Packing – The Court clarified that the term ‘manufacture’ includes any process of making, altering, breaking, packing, or relabeling with a view to sale or distribution – Since the buyer was engaged in breaking down and repackaging the drug, it was engaged in a legitimate manufacturing process – Therefore, the sale to such an entity was not illegal [Paras 23-26].

High Court’s Interpretation Flawed – Misreading of Law – The High Court incorrectly held that the license under Form 25 was ‘subject to’ a Form 20B license – The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution failed to demonstrate how the Form 25 license was in violation of Form 20B conditions – Consequently, the High Court’s decision dismissing the quashing petition was set aside [Paras 39-41].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Proceedings Quashed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants [Para 41].

Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC – Second Wife’s Entitlement – Relief Granted – The appellant-wife was denied maintenance by the High Court on the ground that her first marriage was not legally dissolved, rendering her second marriage void – The Supreme Court held that maintenance laws must be interpreted with a focus on social justice and preventing destitution – Held: Even if the second marriage was legally void, the appellant-wife was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, considering the respondent’s knowledge of her prior marriage and their long cohabitation as husband and wife [Paras 10-14].

Expansive Interpretation of "Wife" – Protection Against Vagrancy – The Court referred to Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141, and Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188, to hold that the definition of "wife" under Section 125 CrPC should be interpreted broadly to prevent vagrancy and destitution – Held: A woman who has lived with a man in a de facto marriage cannot be denied maintenance merely due to the absence of legal validity in the marriage [Paras 15-18].

Husband’s Knowledge of Prior Marriage – Bar on Escaping Marital Obligations – The Court noted that the respondent had full knowledge of the appellant’s previous marriage but still married her twice and lived with her – The Court held that a husband cannot benefit from legal technicalities to escape maintenance obligations when he voluntarily cohabited with the woman as his wife – Held: The respondent was estopped from denying maintenance on the basis of legal infirmities in the marriage [Paras 19-21].

Restoration of Maintenance Award – Supreme Court Reverses High Court’s Decision – The Family Court had originally awarded ₹3,500 per month to the appellant-wife and ₹5,000 per month to her daughter – The Supreme Court restored this order, holding that maintenance is a legal duty, not a mere benefit – Held: Maintenance of ₹3,500 per month to the appellant-wife reinstated, with arrears payable within eight weeks [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court restored the Family Court’s award of maintenance to the appellant-wife, holding that a strict interpretation of "wife" under Section 125 CrPC would defeat the provision’s social justice objective – Maintenance of ₹3,500 per month granted, payable with arrears within eight weeks.
 

Condonation of Delay – Delay of 586 Days in Filing Appeal – High Court’s Decision Set Aside – The High Court condoned the delay of 586 days in filing the appeal by subsequent purchasers, reasoning that they were senior citizens residing abroad and were unaware of the proceedings – Held: Mere passage of time or reliance on vendor’s assurances is not a sufficient ground for condonation – Delay was unexplained and unreasonable – High Court erred in condoning the delay and allowing the appeal – Appeal allowed, delay condonation set aside [Paras 23-24].

Right to Appeal – Grant of Leave to Appeal – Rejection of Impleadment Application – Whether Subsequent Purchasers Can Appeal Against Final Decree – The subsequent purchasers had sought impleadment in the trial court, which was rejected, and the order attained finality – Held: Once impleadment was denied and not challenged, they had no right to seek leave to appeal against the final decree – Findings of the trial court rejecting their impleadment operated as res judicata – High Court’s order granting leave to appeal was unsustainable – Appeal allowed, leave to appeal set aside [Paras 42-43].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act – Rights of Transferee Pendente Lite – The subsequent purchasers bought the property while a suit for specific performance was pending and in violation of an injunction order – Held: Transfers made pendente lite are not void ab initio but remain subject to the outcome of litigation – Such transferees cannot claim independent rights against a decree that binds their vendor – They are bound by the outcome of the litigation and have no right to challenge the decree independently – Appeal allowed, rights of the original plaintiffs upheld [Paras 46-48].

Judicial Discretion – Grant of Leave to Appeal – Limits of Appellate Court’s Power – Appeal Allowed – A person who is not a party to the original suit can appeal only if they are directly and adversely affected – The appellate court’s discretion to grant leave should be exercised judiciously and not as a matter of routine – Held: The High Court wrongly exercised its discretion by granting leave to appeal to persons who had no standing – Appeal allowed, High Court’s order quashed [Paras 56-58].

Service Law – Selection Process – Allegation of Nepotism – Rule against Bias – Validity of Appointments Upheld – The selection of Shiksha Karmis was challenged on the ground that several appointees were related to members of the selection committee, violating the principle of nemo judex in causa sua – The Collector quashed the selection without issuing notices to the affected candidates – Held: Mere suspicion of bias without proof is insufficient – The presence of related members did not vitiate the process as they had recused themselves – The challenge based on bias was unfounded – Appeal allowed, selection upheld.

Principles of Natural Justice – Right to Fair Hearing – Violation Rendered Selection Invalid – Audi Alteram Partem Violated – The appointments were canceled without affording the selected candidates an opportunity to be heard – Held: The failure to serve notice to the affected parties was a gross violation of the principles of natural justice – Opportunity of hearing is a fundamental procedural safeguard – The absence of notice rendered the cancellation void ab initio – Appeal allowed, appointments reinstated.

Judicial Review – Appellate Proceedings – Whether Violation of Natural Justice at Initial Stage Can Be Cured in Appeal – No Cure at Appellate Stage – The respondents contended that the hearing before the Revisional Authority rectified any prior defect – Held: The lack of fair hearing at the original stage cannot be remedied at the appellate stage – The procedural flaw at the initial stage irreversibly tainted the entire process – A valid initial decision is a prerequisite for a meaningful appellate review – Appeal allowed, original orders quashed.

Service Law – Continuity of Service – Remedy – Given the long passage of time (over 25 years) since the appointments, remanding the matter for fresh consideration would cause injustice to the appointees – Held: The appointments stand upheld, and no fresh inquiry shall be ordered – The appeal is allowed, and the appointees are entitled to continue in service – Appeal allowed, no further proceedings necessary.

Decision: Supreme Court upheld Justice KV Vishwanathan’s opinion – Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Division Bench set aside – Selection restored as appellants had served for over 25 years – Remanding the matter for fresh consideration would be impractical – Parties to bear their own costs

Reservation in PG Medical Courses – Constitutionality of Domicile-Based Reservation – Violation of Article 14 – The UT of Chandigarh reserved 50% of its State Quota seats for candidates with a background in Chandigarh—The High Court struck down this policy as unconstitutional—Held: Residence-based reservation in PG Medical Courses is impermissible and violates Article 14—The Constitution of India does not recognize State-specific domicile, and all citizens share a common ‘Indian domicile’—Institutional preference is permitted to a reasonable extent, but domicile-based reservation is unconstitutional—High Court’s decision upheld, residence-based reservation struck down [Paras 5-6, 31-32].

Judicial Precedents – Institutional Preference vs. Domicile Reservation – The Supreme Court relied on landmark rulings, including Jagadish Saran v. Union of India (1980) 2 SCC 768, Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654, and Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (2003) 11 SCC 146—Held: While institutional preference in PG admissions is permissible under Article 14, domicile-based reservations are not—Such reservations compromise meritocracy and contradict equality principles—Precedents reaffirmed that higher education must be based on merit and not residence [Paras 6-9, 16-17].

Concept of Domicile – Single Indian Domicile – State-Specific Domicile Invalid – The Court clarified that the Indian Constitution recognizes only one domicile, i.e., ‘domicile in the territory of India’—The concept of State-specific domicile is legally untenable—Held: The practice of equating domicile with residence for reservation in education is impermissible—States must refrain from using ‘domicile’ when they actually mean ‘residence’ [Paras 19-24].

Reservation in Higher Education – Merit and Equality in PG Medical Courses – Limited Scope of Residence-Based Reservation – The Court distinguished between UG (MBBS) and PG (MD/MS) courses—While residence-based reservations may be justified for MBBS admissions to promote local healthcare, the same is impermissible in PG courses—Held: PG Medical Courses require the highest level of merit, and compromising it through regional reservations would be detrimental to national interest—Article 14 mandates equal treatment for all students regardless of State of residence—Admissions to be strictly based on NEET rankings—High Court’s decision upheld [Paras 29-30].

Institutional Preference – Validity of Institutional Quota – Reasonable institutional preference upheld—Held: Institutional preference is constitutionally valid but must be kept within reasonable limits—However, additional reservation based on residence is impermissible—50% institutional preference upheld, but residence-based quota struck down [Paras 33-34].

Equitable Relief – No Retrospective Effect – The Supreme Court clarified that its declaration of impermissibility of residence-based reservation in PG Medical Courses will not affect students who have already been admitted or completed their courses—Held: The ruling will apply prospectively to ensure fairness—Future admissions must adhere strictly to merit-based criteria as per NEET rankings—Existing admissions remain unaffected [Para 34].

Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC - Murder – Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony – Conviction Reversed – The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC based on the testimony of two eyewitnesses (PW-4 and PW-5) – Both witnesses made significant omissions and contradictions in their statements, including inconsistencies about the number of stab wounds, position of the deceased, and their own locations – Witnesses failed to report the crime to the police immediately, and other eyewitnesses were not examined – Held: The testimony of PW-4 and PW-5 was unreliable due to material contradictions and omissions – Appeal allowed, conviction set aside [Paras 6-7].

Criminal Law – Section 27, Indian Evidence Act – Recovery of Weapon Alone Insufficient for Conviction – The prosecution relied on the recovery of the murder weapon at the appellant’s instance – Held: A disclosure statement without corroborative evidence is insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Recovery of a weapon alone cannot substitute for substantive evidence of the crime – Appeal allowed, acquittal granted [Para 8].

Burden of Proof – Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases – Reasonable Doubt – The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt – The case against the appellant rested solely on unreliable eyewitness testimony and weak circumstantial evidence – Held: Failure of prosecution to discharge its burden – Conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted and ordered to be released unless required in another case [Paras 9-10].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Wrongful Confinement and Human Trafficking – Supreme Court quashes proceedings against Ajay Malik under Sections 343, 370, and 120B IPC – High Court erred in rejecting his quashing petition despite lack of prima facie evidence – Complainant’s statements, no-objection affidavits, and presence of an alternative exit at the premises negated allegations of wrongful confinement – No evidence of trafficking or conspiracy – Held: Continuation of trial would be futile and an abuse of the judicial process – Proceedings against Ajay Malik quashed [Paras 8-29, 55(i)].

Compounding of Offence – Rejection of Compounding Application – Section 370 IPC being a non-compoundable offence – High Court justified in rejecting Ajay Malik’s compounding application – However, issue rendered academic as Supreme Court quashes proceedings altogether – Held: Courts must balance legal principles with practicality when parties seek compounding, especially in cases involving vulnerable complainants [Paras 30-32, 55(i)].
Criminal Procedure – Discharge of Accused – Role of Ashok Kumar – No direct allegations in FIR or witness statements – No mens rea or active participation – High Court right in discharging him under Section 227 CrPC – Held: Mechanical inclusion in chargesheet unjustified – No interference warranted in the High Court’s order discharging Ashok Kumar [Paras 33-36, 55(ii)].

Labour Law – Rights of Domestic Workers – Legal Vacuum in India – Supreme Court highlights lack of a comprehensive legal framework for domestic workers – Observes systemic exploitation due to absence of regulation – Compares Indian legal position with international standards such as ILO conventions and domestic legislations in other jurisdictions – Holds: Immediate need for legislative intervention to protect domestic workers from exploitation [Paras 37-53].

Directive to Government – Policy Recommendation – Supreme Court directs Government of India to constitute an Expert Committee to explore legislative framework for domestic workers – Ministry of Labour and Employment to lead consultation with relevant ministries – Committee to submit report within six months – Held: Judiciary must exercise restraint but urges legislature to act on this pressing social issue [Paras 54-55(iv),(v)].

Decision: Appeal of Ajay Malik allowed – FIR, chargesheet, and all criminal proceedings against him quashed – Appeal of State against Ashok Kumar dismissed – High Court order discharging Ashok Kumar upheld – Government directed to consider legislative measures for domestic workers’ rights – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of [Paras 55-57].
 

Criminal Revision – Reversal of Acquittal by High Court - Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 401(3) CrPC – High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, reversed the acquittal of the appellants and convicted them for murder under Section 302 IPC—Held: Section 401(3) CrPC expressly prohibits conversion of acquittal into conviction—High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directly convicting the accused instead of ordering a retrial—Reliance placed on Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 650 and Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, (2022) 13 SCC 115—Impugned conviction quashed [Paras 19-26, 39-41].

Natural Justice – Violation of Right to Representation – Articles 21 & 22(1) of Constitution – High Court convicted the appellants without serving notice upon them or affording them an opportunity to be heard—Legal aid counsel was appointed for both parties on the same day of hearing, without prior access to case records—Held: This is a gross violation of principles of natural justice and constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22(1)—Reliance placed on Santhakumari v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2023) 15 SCC 440 and Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, (1978) 2 SCC 424—Conviction set aside [Paras 27-28, 44-47].

Retrospective Application of Proviso to Section 372 CrPC – Not Permissible – Prosecution argued that proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which grants victims a right to appeal against acquittal, should be applied retrospectively—Held: Right to appeal is a substantive right and cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly stated—Reliance placed on Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752 and Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602—Since the revision petition was filed in 2006, prior to the 2009 amendment, no appeal was maintainable—High Court’s reliance on Section 372 CrPC misplaced [Paras 48-72].

Use of Section 161 CrPC Statements as Substantive Evidence – Violation of Section 162 CrPC & Section 145 Evidence Act – High Court relied on the police statement of PW-7 recorded under Section 161 CrPC instead of his oral testimony before the trial court—Held: Statements under Section 161 CrPC are not substantive evidence and can only be used for contradiction—Reliance placed on Anees v. State Govt. of NCT, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 757 and V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 9 SCC 588—Conviction based on such evidence is unsustainable [Paras 73-81].

Unlawful Detention – Compensation for Wrongful Incarceration – Appellants, in their 60s and 70s, were imprisoned for over three months after wrongful conviction by the High Court—Held: This violated their fundamental right under Article 21—Reliance placed on D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746—State directed to pay ₹5,00,000 compensation to each appellant within four weeks [Paras 82-99].

Failure of Public Prosecutor to Assist the Court – Need for Reform in Prosecution System – Public Prosecutor prayed for death penalty despite jurisdictional defect in conviction—Court criticized appointment of politically favored, incompetent prosecutors—Held: Public Prosecutors must be appointed solely based on merit, integrity, and legal acumen—Reliance placed on State of Kerala v. B. Six Holiday Resorts, (2010) 5 SCC 186—State Governments directed to ensure merit-based appointments [Paras 90-97].

Decision: Impugned conviction set aside—Appellants acquitted—State directed to pay ₹5,00,000 each as compensation within four weeks—Registry to monitor compliance.

• Competition Law – Combination Approval – Section 29 of the Competition Act – Validity of Process Followed by CCI – The appellants contended that the approval of the combination by the CCI was vitiated due to non-compliance with procedural requirements under Section 29 – Specifically, they argued that the CCI failed to issue show cause notices to both the acquirer (AGI) and the target entity (HNGIL), and did not conduct an investigation before approving the combination – Held: The CCI's approval process was valid, as it had discretion under Section 29(1A) to determine whether further investigation was necessary – The CCI, after issuing a show cause notice to AGI, received modifications to the resolution plan and was satisfied that no further investigation was warranted – Therefore, the approval of the combination was upheld.
• Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) – Competition Clearance Requirement – Whether Combination Approval Must Precede Resolution Plan Approval – Under the RFRP issued by the resolution professional, prospective resolution applicants, including AGI and INSCO, were required to obtain CCI’s approval before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) could consider the resolution plan – AGI sought approval through Form II, while INSCO, not being a market player, sought approval under the green channel (Form I) – The appellants argued that the approval was improperly granted without following full investigative procedures – Held: The requirement of obtaining CCI’s approval before CoC consideration was justified under Sections 5 and 6 of the Competition Act – However, the approval process followed by CCI was within its statutory discretion and did not require a separate investigation unless prima facie concerns under Section 29(2) were established.
• Show Cause Notice – Interpretation of "Parties to Combination" under Section 29(1) of the Competition Act – Whether Notice Must be Issued to Both Acquirer and Target – The appellants argued that under Section 29(1), show cause notices must be issued to both AGI (the acquirer) and HNGIL (the target entity) – The NCLAT held that CCI erred by only issuing notice to AGI – Held: The Supreme Court affirmed the NCLAT’s view, holding that under Section 29(1), notice should be issued to both parties to the combination – However, in the present case, the omission did not vitiate the approval, as the resolution professional, representing HNGIL, had full knowledge of the proceedings and did not object.
• Market Dominance and AAEC – CCI’s Role in Assessing Competitive Impact – Judicial Deference to Expert Findings – The appellants challenged the CCI’s assessment of market dominance and appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC), arguing that the combined market share of AGI and HNGIL exceeded 70% in certain segments, raising competition concerns – They also contended that the modification requiring divestment of the Rishikesh Plant was insufficient to mitigate AAEC risks – Held: The CCI, as an expert body, had carefully evaluated market conditions and competition concerns – Its approval of the combination, subject to modifications, was not arbitrary or perverse – The Supreme Court reiterated that economic regulations and competition assessments should generally not be interfered with unless there is clear illegality or irrationality.
• Natural Justice – Right of Third-Party Objectors – Whether the UP Glass Manufacturers Syndicate (UPGMS) and Others Had Locus Standi to Challenge the Combination – UPGMS and other appellants challenged the combination approval, arguing that they were affected parties – NCLAT ruled that they had the locus standi under Section 53B of the Competition Act – Held: The Supreme Court upheld the finding that "person aggrieved" should be interpreted broadly to include industry stakeholders who may be affected by competition distortions – However, their challenge on substantive grounds was rejected, as the procedural safeguards under the Act were adequately followed.
• Judicial Deference to Regulatory Bodies – CCI as an Expert Authority – Limited Scope of Appellate Interference – The Court reiterated that regulatory decisions by expert bodies like the CCI should not be overturned unless they are perverse, irrational, or violate statutory mandates – Given the detailed assessment of market conditions and the procedural safeguards followed, the approval of the combination was upheld – The Court cited Union of India v. Cipla Ltd. and Brahm Dutt v. Union of India, reaffirming the principle that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of expert bodies in economic regulation matters.
• Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Combination Approval Upheld – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the CCI’s approval of the combination – It held that while procedural lapses, such as the failure to issue notice to HNGIL, occurred, they did not vitiate the overall approval process – The challenge based on AAEC was rejected, as the CCI’s analysis was based on expert findings and market realities.